unwilling to control the terrorists, and that's the current standard we have. so what we were trying to do as the united states was to change the law on it. to say not just you have control if the acts are imputable, but now if you just lack control the you're unable or unwilling to control the terrorists, we're going in, and we're going to take care of them. and that's what we've been doing. the bush team did it and then obama ramped it up with all of the predator drone strikes in pakistan yemen somalia and ore places as well. >> so you have the technological innovation of the predator drones, the predator drone kind of hardware, although it's really just a plane that fires missiles and, you know, that's piloted by somebody in nevada rather than somebody in the cockpit. but it's still, i mean, it's essentially -- that technological innovation isn't really as dramatic, not as dramatic as space flight or something like that. and then you have -- but you do have this new kind of threat
that hadn't existed before. in the end, ultimately, you say this doesn't count. this doesn't -- is that because ultimately it hasn't changed international law? >> i think there was a moment when a grotian moment could have formed. and it would have been if we were more careful in trying to define the owls we were trying to promote. truman was very careful in trying to define very narrow rules. bush was not so. so basically the theory he could have had that i think would have worked, and it may still be the theory down the line, is an analogy to the laws of neutrality. ..
>> in a formal manner? >> gave a speech in 2010 at the american society of international law were he propounded the very near greuel that we are designed to give countries a lot of comfort. the problem was that when -- we were not actually obeying by those rules. only use the predators' not -- drawn as a last resort distinguish between the terrorists and the civilians
minimize any collateral damage, the family members are other people. and then because of mr. snowden who want to talk about again, we have learned that the casualties of an expensive without their permission we have gone from an area where they gave us permission to operate to the entire country using these predator drones, and we have not been following, in their opinion, the rule that the legal adviser said out. so, you know, there was another moment where we could have had a version. >> you are kind of a lefty. kind of a lefty. anyway, but i want to put you on the spot you for a second. aviano -- had a line of the you're not just making value judgments? these are doctrines. these are things that i liken these at things that are not
right. >> that is solely the problem with any new doctrine. they come with their own baggage. you say i am a lefty. and actually known in academia a practical minded person. >> policy conversations. >> yupik issues. >> anyway. we might have cleared it up. >> exactly. you always have to ask that. if someone comes in with the new series. >> nuremberg, that created a force for good. humanity. the continental shelf sheriff's
and seems to have created new energy, you know, and about capitalism and the spreading of markets and the economy in economic growth. you know, you can -- if you are not getting over the environmental about you can probably say that has been a force for good in the world and a force for growth. space travel similarly there is not allowed to argue. it is after the fact. relaxing people. and, you know -- >> things are not really that complicity. for a sample. and the world of space law we put geode synchronous satellite on top of countries, and they stay there at all times. spying doing research whenever they're doing, but it is valuable real estate. and so if you were someone -- >> the rates down extend down the stratosphere.
>> case and where it began as the moment. spaces, the upper levels at a fixed wing aircraft could fly. now, that probably does not make sense today because the virgin atlantic flights will be going into outer space with their plans and coming back down, but that is where it was. anyway, a lot of these there were people who were not happy with the change but it made sense. it happened to crystallize. it did not protest. i suppose the answer is the second case study which i also think would have been one that in the liberal would have loved to have seen. >> talk about that one. this is a humanitarian. >> all right. so humanitarian intervention in the old days countries like vietnam tried to stop the killing fields in cambodia by intervening. the world said that vietnam, you should never done that maybe its
potential. you can't do intervention unless the security council says you can come in they have the problem of the detail. right now we're back almost where we were with the cold war. everything that we want to do it then syria. so 1999. the albanians. 500,000 of them took to the mountains. started to decrease. that probably would have all frozen and night and it would have been genocide. we forget that ultimately may be 10,000 people were killed
because 500,000 abbottabad were saved by the humanitarian intervention but it would have been and genocide. we will call it a potential genocide. the united states goes to security council's botox to its allies, russia, china led to a security council resolution authorizing humanitarian intervention to save these people. russia was a historic ally. nader says he will do it anyway. when they do, the countries have all these different reasons and rationales. some say we are doing it for humanitarian reasons. the u.k. says this is our right to save people. international law allows this. international law before that would have justified that. the united states was afraid of a new humanitarian intervention role because it could be so easily abused. the u.s. said that this is a new law. it is generous. it is a one time deal. special factors never to be
repeated. don't take this. after words almost every country in the world applauded this. on the road to independence. the u.n. was able to move in, a story with a good ending. the u.s. secretary general says what to make of this, what happens when there is another rwanda. i we going to save their lives and the outlaws? how do we make sense of this? so he said it was a situation that the called unlawful by legitimate. and i am pulling my hair out. as a lawyer. i suppose what it could have been his -- >> it justifies the means. >> and this side of the penalty should be, and there is no penalty. israel those in argentina and kidnaps the nazi was irresponsible for a lot of the
holocaust hiding in argentina. they do that without argentina's permission. they complain that they violated their sovereignty. the security council says, we continue but then it is silent on what happened. so is zero bows and prosecutes eichmann. convicted. hong, and no one complained. is that what they're talking about? >> and nice job by the way. >> but it was not comfortable. so the group was convened in canada the international committee on sovereignty and intervention. they came up with a new concept as some of you may have heard of other responsibility to protect doctrine. it has this cool bumper sticker freeze. part two t. so the responsibility to protect doctrine. what they said is when the security council was paralyzed
sometimes countries are allowed to act alone if they act with the right intentions, if they get out of there as soon as they can if it is not a land grab. so they created this new doctrine, and the doctrine after 1999 could a blend into the moment. it was right to do so. the problem was well, to problems, three. one problem is that the u.s. was not comfortable with it. so they have not announced a doctrine with clear guidelines. the second problem is the timing. the united states in beast and almost every country said it was unlawful. >> that's the thing. remember the claim that the
september 11th that was never found, the yellowcake could sit not exist but there was a simultaneous claim that we had to do it to stop saddam hussein from killing more people because he had killed millions. on both sides. so -- >> and chemical weapons. the only legitimate argument. >> it was not accepted. the world cup that this was just his war. he had lied his own country into it and there were very unhappy with it. there are afraid now. going to be abused. russia in votes responsibly to protect and it goes to the south
of georgia. if we have to do this. this is a land grab, totally abusive. because of all that the security council and general assembly finally passed resolutions that endorsed kaj instead of saying, yes you can do it, your other factors they said it sees this as a political principle that you can never intervene with the security council authorization. so they took of the energy out and it at that fact. the beginning of the war in syria starting to come and and make this complicated almost everyone in the cabinet was ready to intervene.
it talked about the legality. and this is an interesting point. a lot of people think when it comes to use of force countries don't really care and sometimes they do act outside of what is the awful but i had this other but. this is my last one. foreign policy in a crisis which is all about of the times when presidents and other foreign leaders decide not to intervene are not to use force because the legal advisers still in that it is unlawful which are stores that most people don't know. >> we only had a moment when something like some lawful. a legal adviser comes up with the rationale. >> but in the u.k. they literally have this debate on parliament. they had a commission coming hearings, they had the former
legal adviser of the united kingdom and had resigned in protest of the 2003 invasion saying that it was unlawful. and by a very narrow margin the parliament said, we think it would be unlawful to intervene. we will not allow you to do that the u.s. is saying, well, maybe we have to ask our congress for permission since u.s. to parliament. our congress is going to say no. so of a sudden because the illegality was so murky it made it much more difficult. >> and the story they you just described explains why all of this actually matters. had that been a true moment in definition this would be a very different conversation about syrian intervention during that. >> some people will tell you that all of this talk was just a pretext. it was too messy to go when. going to be the new country
government going to turn into egypt and libya which has not turned up that well. so all of these other reasons as well but the discussion is about law which is what was interesting. >> to any of you have questions? i can keep going. >> i think it is just me. >> we have a microphone coming. >> a lot of it comes out. >> this seems to me that maybe it is over simplistic. takes decades in the hands when you need everybody on board but it is a moment if the u.s. needs it to happen now. tammy you know, if that was like no romberg pretty back --
three black-and-white. it starts to seem just out of convenience. to the point where you say oh, the security council meets to sign off on it. again, you see that it is these major, traditional powers. >> is this a descriptive concept or normative? and my answer would be that customary international law even when it forms slowly under the traditional elements as this concept of the international court of justice and other tribunals to recognize that certain countries count more especially effective. think about savannah. you have the big giants heard of elephants that come by. that is the u.s. and the u.k. and russia and china. and then the herd of elephants are going to leave footprints in the path. and then they're going to have a pass that is not as customary
with international law. power by repetition. the zero countries don't have the footprint. that was always recognized and even when it took a long time. there is another aspect of this, and that is that countries can opt out of customary international law by being a persistent objector. so with treaties, if you don't sign it you are not bound. with customary international law when you see other countries doing something at the time is lawful and you say no, it's not, you have to protest. i suppose you're right the persistent objector rule does not work so well when things are sped up, but in some respects the united states may think this is a great idea, but governments are trying to be much more cautious about this. they know that there is treaty that they can stay out of to protect there interest. if it grows slowly the next demonstration can lori about that or five down the road, but
if it grows within a single administration and they have to be concerned about this. there will probably be pushed back from the very government that you think will be in favor of this concept because there will be afraid of the implications. ultimately i am giving definition to it. i'm telling people about something in countries that they have ignored. a point you make is true. the way customary international law forms they are the pioneers
that generally generate the new law. >> great question. >> we need a microphone over year. >> it seems that trying to said it is suddenly a rise in customary law that is a fatal oxymoron and i am wondering why when you were developing your theory you did not simply say that this is a whole new third branch or foundation of international law i saw the statement of an accepted international norm that would have avoided the oxymoron the still stayed with what i think you are trying to say. in new bottles. >> this is why this story was so important to me. and i was writing the book and thinking about the very question and you ask him that was when the light bulb went off. customary international law crystallizes. that is the term everyone uses.
we think of it as this millennial or 100 your process. and what i learned is a you can recrystallize gemstones within one year. if you can do that to gemstones and still use the concept of crystallization why not with customary international law would be my -- >> rapid crystallization. >> other questions? >> let's talk about and lord snowdon who has my vote, by the way, for a person of the year not that that matters. this moment over the last nine to ten months or so has changed our understanding of how state actors be a total another. and many we now know are violating international law and violating the basic understanding of sovereignty
and it is not just the u.s. now it is coming up that everyone is tapping angela marcos' own. it is a metaphor. it is not true. what is your theory about what is going on here? >> related to this expected to be smuggled out on the airplane by the bolivian president the united states forced to land. and polybius said, violated our territorial integrity. the president's aircraft is like our country. bnl was not happy. there were reluctantly -- i don't know what we promised them. bolivia was mad. we will take this to the international court of justice. you know, new international
moment. the other thing usually the discourse between countries is all caps secret. so they practiced. it's hard to find some times. presidential statements and press releases and so forth but now we know all the cable traffic that has been going on. we know that much more. >> but it is the same sort. >> so i think the fact that all of this stuff has to bunt -- suddenly been brought to light is going to cause all sorts of just shock waves through the international system. it could be that we see new law created by it. countries my say to the united states we want a memorandum of understanding that you pledge
and because of this event which is technologically and politically driven it could be the formation of some new law some transformative moments. >> do you see the international law community in the circles in which to operate talking about this? >> yes, but they are talking to faced. the countries are upset and want to do something about it. yet as you pointed out it was not just tapped by obama but have the other countries in the world that have the technology. everybody as part of national security is doing a lot of this. >> we don't want it done to us, but we want to keep being able to do it to you. >> in general i would say that the internet could create a new moment because so much is happening. the ability to intercept a communication in just a real question of what we are willing
to live with. do we have an expectation of privacy anymore? if that changes for constitutional purposes we have a moment, but it could be one that is just broader than the u.s. >> other questions? >> as this book been received? >> i no there is something on the back this is this is not as safe book. >> my good friend. >> your good friend. >> i am glad he did that. he said the very provocative thing. the book has been launched. all of the major players at the international tribunals were still there. at think they're going to start setting this in their decision. then we went to washington d.c. sean murphy, a u.s. member of the international law commission, a u.n. body that is codifying international law has a debate. he said that the commission has taken a the study of the
formations as the first time ever. and in the draft study paragraph one is the citation. there are debating and discussing. sean actually liked most of what i was saying. he had some quibbles. that is on youtube. then i went up to new york. we got to have our discussion. his major point was the one that you were making in the audience. he thought that the moments were undemocratic and basically customary international law was a bit undemocratic. i am not going back far enough. i am basically describing something that he thinks is probably a tactic. many of the things in there including the importance of customer national lawyer endorsed. we have a great discussion. basically the book is hot right now.
i hope the general audience that is out there watching and even on lawyers will read the history chapters the chapters on humanitarian intervention and on the targets killing because that stuff is written for a general audience. it is so important and relevant to today's events. ♪ what do you think about your friends point you are just describing something and maybe go bad. is it could go bad? where you come down? are these good for the world of bad for the world? >> i think these things happen. lightning strikes girl bad. i think that it is important that you have to study it and bring into light. you cannot ignore it because you're basically having a distorted view of the law if you don't recognize that there is this third element that is affecting the rapidity, the
velocity of the formation of customary international law but i am ambivalent, conflicted. >> what's next? >> what's next well, a book on piracy. >> high seas piracy. >> yes. the problem right now. >> i thought johnny depp was going to be in that. guess that's why americans like is some much. >> staying at home a little bit. but my right. it is in my blood. >> the fundamental change. the author thank you so much. [applause]
>> you're watching book tv nonfiction authors and books every weekend on c-span2. >> this was a deliberate move to simply and when the controversy and actually blame. that was always the perspective of the government. blame merv. in other words she was the one that stood out that was very much the idea. she was a victim. she should have been protected. there was no protection. the elite force of policemen into the rally botox to 150
people. so no relief forced police protection. that was the duty of the government. >> former u.n. assistant secretary-general on the international inquiry he led into the assassination. >> coming in january in-depth with radio talk show most. he will take your questions for three hours beginning at noon eastern sunday, january 5th all part of book tv weekends on c-span2. and on-line we want to know what your favorite books were. join other readers click on book
tv to enter the chat room. >> edwin black is next. he argues that tax exempt for otherwise publicly subsidized organizations and the new israel fund a working to block peace and reconciliation. this is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> this is my second appearance in congress on the subject of human rights. i will begin this briefing the same lab began my last for congress on the subject of eugenics. i come here not as a republican
or democrat liberal or conservative but as a historian and investigative reporter who is concerned with human rights. it is because i make no political distinctions then come at it with an apolitical point of view the reason for my presence is so apropos. it is the culmination of almost a half century of human rights investigator journalism going back to the 60's and 70's. and i have looked into the case of the armenians, the appellations the african
phases when i did my book we talked about genocide in by america against 90 percent of its own citizens but the greatest powers in this country the intellectual and progressively to buy corporate money and philanthropy. the carnegie institution resulted in the sterilization of some 60,000 americans and the untold erasure of untold numbers of people who were never born. this is what got me into the realm of philanthropic abuse. i became studied in the topic of charities who take their money for non charitable purpose
blatantly anti-semitic anti zionist and anti-israel anti piece. and when this investigation broke over the world some 20 members of congress pressure the ford foundation to remove its funding which is exactly what it did, and a channel that money into an organization. the name of that organization was the new israel fund. now, over the past ten years many people have come to me to ask me to take a fresh look at how taxpayer money is being used in israel. we are spending a lot of money is especially to assist peace and reconciliation in israel because that is america's goal, that is the american value but it turns out that my
investigation documents that taxpayer money is actually financing the planes of confrontation and even terrorism i am going to be briefing today on policy what is wrong with american policy, what is wrong with american legislation what we can do about it. i'm going to start with one of the most astonishing facts that i have found. american taxpayer money is financing terrorist salaries of palestinian terrorists who are convicted in serving time in in the israeli prison. the more heinous their crime the more of your money they're getting. here is how it works. if a palestinian terrorist
commence an active terror against innocent civilians say a family or a bus with the bomb or even just killing someone with a knife that person immediately goes on official palestinian authority salary. and that salary escalates under the law a palestinian long call the law of the prisoner. and the more heinous the crime the more money the palestinian gets and these amounts to some of the best salaries and the best compensation in the palestinian authority. we are talking about thousands of dollars per year and we are talking about thousands of dollars each month. here is so it works. how do they decide what is the
most heinous crime? they let the israelis decide. it depends upon the prison sentence. so the sliding scale involves so much money for one year prison, five years in prison, ten years in prison, and even 30 years in prison. this money is paid directly to the president during his time in prison. it is a reward for the act of terrorism. the prisoner is provided with the pla power of attorney, and he transmits that money for holding our spending to his wife, girlfriend family, buddies, organization, in some cases it is the plo in some cases it is another chair so. and where is this money coming from? constantly in the red and it draws this money from donor
countries such as the united states. this constitutes approximately $47 million per month and about 6 percent of the entire palestinian economy. and is a prioritized amount of money. that means if they got a million in the bank and they have starving kids on the one hand there will be the president's salary first and they will take care of the starving kids later. it is a priority. they have their own ministry the palestinian ministry of prisoners devoted to overseeing in executing this program and they have a cause i government organization, the prisoners glove that make sure that if anyone tries to allocate moneys in a way that will circumvent the obligation to pay the prisoner this prisoners --
prisoners club will agitate within the palestinian community more than that any attempts to stop that money will be shut down by the so-called arab see. this is not a secret program. this is a proud program. this is a program that the palestinians consider to be precious not only did the individuals did a stipend for active terrorism that stipend is actually linked to the rank in the palestinian authority and if the crime is heinous enough to make the guy equivalence to an honorary deputy minister. so you can go from ranks to riches and from being a nobody to a famous person in the
palestinian authority to is by blowing a bus or a stabbing an individual. that happened when i was there. this spring i was told, well, there has not been a lot of violence in this area for quite awhile. and there was a medical cloud. and this person's been follow this time to the best of his ability giving medical therapy cloud therapy to victims of terrorism. and that only the israeli kids, but palestinians every one it comes along. this man was just standing and a bus stop. a palestinian planned took a bus down to the junction had the knife in his bank, walked up to the man and stanton.
and then men knew he would not be shot on the spot because he knew that once he put his weapon down the israeli police would not shoot to kill. he knew that once he went to prison once he was sentenced for once he got into the criminal justice program his family would become revered. they would become heroes. in fact, they did become celebrities and most of all he knows that he is not palin to serve ten 15, 20 years there reading knows that in the near future he is going to be on the list for and other prisoners lot whether that is the next obsolete or whether that is the person they were planning to kidnap just days ago when they
discovered a major tunnel in gaza that was big enough to drive a mack truck through. so whether that involves simple acts of we're not going to come back the talks on the table unless we get for other prisoners released, and these are not some of these and bank robbers. the law specifically defines this as those who have committed acts against the israeli presence. and in that book financing the flames i have the official spokesman of the ministry of prisoners actually reading from a law and he went so far as to make a point of it and say now remember this is not your ordinary criminal. this is just set to premiere of those who commit tax.
now, many people in congress are shocked about it. everyone i have told a shocked about a. the only one who is not shocked to read is the palestinian leaders because they have shot of this program from the rooftops as a badge of honor. and most of the bureau chiefs of the western media in jerusalem the diplomatic community our state department, and the foreign ministries across know about it there are organizations that follow this. then make special reports. they will have a video like me talking about this issue. there are tv specials with in the palestinian community about the righteousness of this program. the only when it does not know other members of congress and
their constituents who are giving them the money to transmit to palestinian terrorists a salary which violates american law in this case about 6 percent of the does. there will be forced to pressure to stop funding the program is their prisoners are too precious. we will never stop. and they have a term for it.
>> the sliding scale was not there. the names are not provided. the numbers were not provided. that is been done in irrefutable documentation in financing the flames. now whether we talking about the policy? you must immediately stop funding it and i'm robert. >> a recorded version later just sundays ago from the report -- given the salary demean did
not have a paycheck to buy groceries at the end of the week . the second issued by his call back. once we have identified the fact that millions of dollars have illegally gone to the palestinian authority given under false pretenses now we have to say we get the money back. there would be no way you would
redline this money. it is fungible. you follow the money. i follow the money. i followed directly to where it is now living in the pockets of terrorist prisoners to the tune of about 6 percent of what we pay to foreign aid usaid special programs except it won't be an easy process because the united states policy is a giant carrier group. very hard to turn around, but it is something that needs to be done. now, we will move on. let's move on to the subject of 501c3, deductible organizations. another area that i have devoted much work to. 501c3, charitable organizations supposed to be engaged in charitable lax but as it turns out the man the same way that
the ford foundation was using its tax-exempt status and there were many when i did my funding piece for the gpa -- the ford foundation pulled out of the same more about the four foundations and. if it's a charitable organization that should be involved in charitable facts. will people of told me, what the critics and israel have told me and which was my duty to validate or invalidate, but i did validate was that the largest of the operating cherries in israel today the new israel fund which goes back to the same organization that get the benefit of the ford foundation money when i did my
original investigation and 2003. foundations gave money into an organization's alleging organizations. the ford is real fond then was intended to disperse and bond money to other groups. if you check many of the financial reporting papers of the organizations that get the money at the ford israel fund, there will look at the ford is real fun as their founders. there will list the board of directors as the founders. there will list all sorts of programs as being funded by the ford is row fund. no such thing. does not exist and never did. the we have not addressed some phone number, does not have a bank account with -- who is an
outside contractor, actually a very nice guy. and it is really just an identification for a pool of money that actually went to louisville. all right. now we know there is no new israel fund, and there is more to the story. not only poses money out of the dairy group but that of the new israel fund. it has pulled its money out of car is now known as the social justice fund because this nonexistent charity making nonexistent grants through an
entity that never existed vick as a new name that new name no longer reflects the ford foundation. this is a good time to say something about the ford foundation. they cooperated with me in all parts of my investigation. and they have had a complete turnaround in their outlook probably to new leaders. they have funded -- they are no longer funding agitation groups, now funding such things as the anti-defamation league which promotes peace -- promotes peaceful solution the holocaust memorial in israel for decades is a connection between henry
ford in the ford motor company the great anti-semites and his colleagues and the ford foundation they exited the ford foundation some decades ago. they're not connected. so the ford foundation now is almost a second iteration of its original henry ford identity. so i just want to make clear that the ford foundation cooperated with me, and i also want to make clear that although i do give -- i am in the spend time investigating that george soros foundation and the new israel fund, the new israel fund was very, very helpful and all my work. very transparent. paid just about nothing which is why i was able to get just about everything.
so let's talk about what the new israel fund is doing. the new israel fund is giving charitable donations but it is not a charity. it is a social action entity, a political entity. they like to say we're not about soup kitchens but social change. and they find about 800 other ngos non-governmental organizations in israel. in many of those organizations have been doing very important work uplifting impoverished families existing battered women looking for ethnic equality in a country that so many ethnic a coming together to pull the cloth. so there is lot that they are during that is very good which is important to recognize. the people who i have
investigated a trying hard to achieve their goal. but just as the people running the eugenics program in the united states thought that the best way to achieve greatness in america utopia in america was to erase the existence of 90 percent of our american citizenry members have connected that the israeli legislature and members of the american israeli military have come together in a multitude to tell me that they believe that the new israel fund is committed to destabilizing the israel defense forces and erasing the jewish identity from the state of israel itself. i will be specific. i will give you three names but
there are many more. the deputy speaker went on record stating dead the new israel fund is determined to destabilize the area. mk land agreed with that completely. also agreed. they went on the record and they added that the new fund was working through its many funded organizations to erase the identity using taxpayer money american and other taxpayer money and furthermore to create
a political force a political party, its political wing, a political movement using american tax payer money as a war chest. now, let me just tell you something. there are a lot of politics and is now. the theory acacias director of the loom will find once said to me -- actually several times everything in israel's political politics is okay in israel. that is all they do in politics. if you think there are a lot of politics and the united states you can quadrupled and is now. but every man woman and child a taxpayer in the united states should not pay for the war chest of a political party in israel.
and what do i mean by that? i mean that for every $1 million in tax to nations that the new israel fund and any other fund gets $440,000 have been subsidized by american taxpayers . we're not about soup kitchens with social change. the fact of the matter is, of the 800 plus organizations that they find in israel and of the many organizations that those organizations find as this goes down to smaller and small arms it is only scores of organizations that are involved in the topic that i am currently talking about today. we should not overlook this
>> so they say that new front -- and they've all used this word -- a new front has been opened up in israel, and it's a human rights front. it's human rights engaged in political militancy. two organizations spring to mind. one is an organization that is interested in recording infractions by israeli military men in the field. and how do they do this? when an israeli soldier has been deployed in the west bank or anywhere in israel for that matter, he is surrounded by
protesters and activists with handheld cameras sometimes just inches from his face. he's standing there and surrounded, as you saw in some of the pictures that i showed you before and as you saw in the trailer done for the book. while that's happening, the israeli -- the palestinian and left-wing israeli protesters are taunting the soldiers. they're insulting his mother they're insulting his country, they're insulting his manhood they're insulting his humanity. they're taking flags and hitting his face mask. the parents are engaged in classic child endangerment classic human shield action. they take their own kids, and they push their kids right into a guy's m-16.
when finally, cameras rolling if and should the soldier react, that is videotaped and that is sent up to the internet and is the basis for a boycott action or a prosecution or a complaint or the portrayal of israeli military men as brutes and bullies even though they're probably the only military in the middle east and one of the few in the world that i can tell you about where every soldier carries in his shirt pocket a small card reminding him of what his honor and duty is to civilians. they take it seriously. and israel has a civilian army, and every high school killed does his time for a coup -- kid does his time for a couple of years when he gets out of high
school and before he goes to college. but there is no wiggle room for human rights in the israeli army. is it possible for israeli military transgressions throughout history and i've written a few books of history about ten, going back to the first professional military men that is, the first salaried military men in history either roman seven you are centurions and the roman army, there have always been infractions. that's always going to be the case. that's why we have human rights, to make sure that there is a law. but human rights must never be political, human rights must never draw a sharp line at one man's religion. everybody is entitled to the same level of human rights. and even soldiers have human rights.
that's called for in many of the geneva treaties. so we have a situation where people are playing for the camera. now, i record one situation in the book in a town which is a small town it's a hamlet. it's residents number some 550 to maybe 580 persons. they're all related through direct or indirect family links they're all part of one family. and these individuals have a staged riot every friday. it's not a spontaneous protest, it's a staged orchestrated planned protest. everybody knows what to do. they are they march down the hill, and they try to get to the road to close the road.
the road is several meters down the hill. remember this all media all legislators, all observers or the middle east and of the israel/palestinian conflict: we're not talking about miles here we're talking about meters. it is sometimes the distance involved is off times -- oftentimes shorter than from this wall to the edge of the building. the protesters come down the parents shove the kids into the soldiers because the soldiers let them protest, they protest all through town, but when they approach the road, the road must be to the capital of israel and its other cities must be kept open. the kids are pushed, the soldiers are prepped and trained. i've been in their sessions i
had bulletproof vest, i had a kevlar helmet, i was ready for the riot, for the tear gas and the molotov cocktails. and when -- if and when the soldiers react, the town and its volunteers who are actually members of the protest will be there to capture the footage. now, this is interesting. the volunteers for the town are actually the protesters themselves. or the cousin of the protester. or living in the household of the protester. or the next door neighbor of the protester. and these cameras are coming from money which has been provided by the new israel fund and by other organizations
similarly situated who are who feel it's their goal to have this situation play out. and it does play out. it plays out every friday at approximately 1 p.m. as a journalist, i was told exactly what time to leave my hotel, exactly what time to arrive exactly what time the riot would start and exactly what time things would get hot. they played to the camera. and in this case it was my photographer. my photographer was stuck in a traffic jam. my photographer didn't leave his hotel in time or didn't leave him home in time, he was stuck. i got all these people ready to riot, i got the soldiers standing with their face masks and their guns nothing's happening.
why? no photographer. so a videotape on the internet right now of me with the protesters complaining that there's been no act of violence by the soldiers against their protest, and that's a fraud, and a the fraud is being perpetrated because i am there to watch it. and they're actually complaining, this'll be the first time in the history of the nonviolent piew. that people have witterly complained -- bitterly complained that their protest was not hit by soldiers. and then my photographer, his name was boaz, he finally got with the program and he showed up. i said it's all over. you're late. he said i did the best i could. as soon as he's there with the big-bodied wide angle lens and the mechanized camera bodies and the roll lex and finish -- rolex
and the lights and all this kind of stuff they see him the riot starts. rocks get thrown crowd control measures go into effect, the scene is made people are playing for the camera. if those cameras were not there, the action would not take place. and what does that mean? that means there could be one friday at that town without a riot. wouldn't that be a start? just a tiny little start. beyond that one of the chief organizers of the protests gets paid gets compensated to record the details but only when there's an act of violence with injured parties. that means if it's a peaceful protest and no one gets injured there's no money.
but if the protest gets out of hand and causes injuries countermeasures, afflictions, this person gets $85. $85 is approximately four times, three to four times the average callly wage in the palestinian authority, so one of the best paying jobs in the palestinian authority is to report on the casualties and injuries that may result from a riot that you yourself are part of orchestrating. that is enabled by american taxpayer policy. okay. now, how am i sure that they're playing for the camera? they're palestinians this a
tiny -- in a tiny town with only one street, and they speak arabicment -- arabic. the israeli soldiers are teenagers mainly, just out of school and they speak hebrew. but the entire riot is conducted in english. it's conducted for the press. it's conducted for the e.u. it's conducted for the observers, and it's enabled by taxpayer money voted right here in this, in this building where i am standing or across the corridors by people who have their offices here and other donor countries throughout the e.u.. and the reason i say it is american taxpayer policy is because it is the taxpayer
policy that allows nonchitter bl activities -- charitable activities political activities confrontational activities to be funded for tax-exempt organizations to the tune of $440,000 for every million dollars. i think the last time i checked in the last several years, the new israel fund was able to garner from all sorts of everywhere about a quarter of a million dollars. that's $250 billion. where does this money come from? it doesn't come from a special allocation from the state of new mexico it doesn't come from a special allocation from the house of representatives, it comes from individual donors. there are donors -- many of them jewish, many of them who just don't know where the money's going or don't care or do know
who are giving this money to organizations not just in new israel fund but to many other funds which are involved in agitation and confrontation activities. you want to see the names of these a organizations? go to their web sites, hit the word donate. they tell you which tax-exempt entity will accept pass-through funds. the money is washed for them through these entities. some of these intendties don't even have addresses. some of them with -- are working out of p.o. boxes. they say, well, we're modern. we don't need an office. and i'll be happy to provide the specifics by pointing them out in chapter and verse in "financing the flames" or through the hearings that i am
calling for to take place as soon as possible on exactly what has happened with the american taxpayer policy. this will also bring up several other dynamics if we're to right the course if we're to do things correctly. and that is going to be how do we address the continued 501(c)(3) status of organizations not engaged in charitable works, but which have the spirit of the law but who are engaged in political activity and confrontation activity? what do we do to rectify the situation and help it going forward? now, i didn't mean to just zero in on the one town, and i want to emphasize that they were very helpful and transparent to me in
all of my time in israel. there's another organization called adalla. and it's devoted to getting israelis prosecuted as war criminals in international tribunals. israel is surrounded in a sea of war crimes. they are surrounded at the north by syria where i had to revise -- i spent six months writing my book, i had to revise death toll three times and the refugee toll three times was there are so many millions of refugees and such a high six-digit number of massacred the deaths in every family. lebanon where there are sectarian bombings to the north.
to israel's south and to israel's west individuals can be splashed with acid because they have not followed certain types of law. there is, people have political differences in the gaza in egypt. they throw them off rooftops. they don't even have kangaroo courts. they just see them they convict them by virtue of an eye, of a visual decision, and they throw them off rooftops. but these organizations are dedicated to convicting israelis. so israelis feel they cannot make the right decision in the field because no matter what they do, they're going to be second guessed and triple guessed. possibly in a court of law, possibly in an international war
crime tribunal. now, i also found fascinating when i followed the money of these organizations that while there are judo nors giving -- jewish donors giving money to the new israel fund be, for some reason these organizations -- i don't want to zero in on them alone, there are many others -- are, these organizations are also getting abundant financing from funds, banks and other institutions which are controlled by iran, saudi arabia and iraq. so what is the common intersection between iranian and saudi funding and the funding that comes out of greater new york city and boston and all over the world? so this brings up the issue of how do we close the loopholes, you know? closing the loopholes is something we do in this country.
good knows there's enough loopholes to drive a mack truck through. and the first thing we do is we call into question how the money's being spent. we found out that the internal revenue service in this country knows the concept of political action and they take lots of steps when they want to. so now it is time for the irs and the legislatures to determine if the 501(c)(3) status of these organizations is justified or part of it may not be justified because there's so much good work that the new israel fund is doing that it is just this monumental wing that has to be addressed. and then, of course, we have to look at the donors. if the donors know that their
money is circumventing the spirit of the law, if the donors are doing this deliberately, naturally there would be prosecution and clawback and penalties. i believe that most of the donors are not aware of what is going on, and that means that the phrase "did know "or "should have known" comes into play. that's the phrase that they give to us and then we will have to ask, were you aware that your money was funding this? did you do your due diligence? is there amnesty, a question of amnesty should be extended. or a better way to say it, draw a bright line in the road as of today, we now know that there are questions. it is possible that donors with
the best feeling in their hearts have given to a cause and not just israel, but be many others that are spending their money in ways that they might not think correct, that they might not want to happen. and here's the interesting part, the new israel fund is doing nothing beneath the table. the new israel fund is doing anything sub rosa. they're completely transparent. you don't need an investigate i have reporter named edwin black to figure this stuff out, you just need a laptop and a mouse and a google account. and you can go up there and you can see all the activities that are being done. they are completely transparent. all the monies that are being spent, and you would do the same due diligence that you would do in an organization that you were investing in.
because that's what a donation is, an investment. are we going to invest in peace are we going to invest in confrontation? and the answer is we need to invest in peace because while i was in israel, i found that this same nation of israel that is under attack 70,000 palestinians each day that's 70,000, are going into israel across this line and working for israeli wages. equal wage equal work conditions. equal employment. lots of watchdogs to make sure it happens. but these people are hiding this the shadows -- in the shadows. they don't have videographers following them around. we have pictures of them in the book with their faces blocked out and their facial
characteristics changed because we don't want to get them killed. what's their death sentence? living and working in peace with israelis with their neighbors. and that's why the administration is actually pushing this program this approach of economic cooperation and peaceful coexistence. secretary kerry has a $4 billion investment plan. why not? the two richest billionaires in the area -- one palestinian and one israeli -- are both offering to prepare their, to propel their billions into joint economic projects that will uplift the entire land. i had a guy i spoke to in gaza and i went all over the west bank. i sat in the homes of the palestinian protest ors. i listened to their point of view.
i listened to the fathers of israeli soldiers who had been killed by terrorists. i listened to the human rights organizations. i listened to the key necessary set -- knesset members. i listened to as many people as i could find naturally. even though my work is not the 7,000 words that would fill a series in a newspaper it's 77,000 words. and even that leaves 99% of everything out. which is one of the things i'm i say about all of my work. no matter how fat the book you're always leaving out 99% of everything. my question is, is it not possible for these people to live in peace? the same question has been asked for decades and centuries. as you know, i come at this from
a historical perspective. i've written six books on the ottoman empire and the, and middle east history going back all the way to abraham. and i can tell you that the same program was advanced in 1918, in 1920 at the san remo conference by the league of nations where the israel mandates was put into effect. the palestinian the palestine mandate was put into effect to create equal home lambeds for arabs and jews. and the arabs declined. and i can tell you that the same thing occurred in 1936 and '37 with the peel commission when the british said let us make -- if these people cannot live together let us divide this tiny tiny tiny land into two halves and let these people live side by side in peace, two nations for two peoples. and that was not accepted.
in 1948 there was a war of independence when everyone, when the british withdrew and everyone was invited to declare their own state. the israelis declared their state, the arabs did not declare their state. the egyptians occupied gaza the jordanians occupied the west bank and the cease fire said no lines shall be drawn. we stopped shooting but we're still not drawing lines. and this has gone on war after war, treaty after treaty where nobody wants to draw the lines. now, we have a chance to draw the lines now. there's another round of talking. but that will never occur as long as terrorists are being paid by american taxpayers feng
my to commit acts of terror and as long as our 501(c)(3) donations are paying for confrontation and an erasure of the identity of the jews. one of the things i found of the jews in israel, one of the things i found fascinating was that we allow by this system to enforce an anti-semitic regime and perspective against jews in israel. let me give you an example of what i mean by that. if a jew goes to the temple mount and his lip is seen to quiver like that, he can be arrested or expelled for a perceived prayer. an arab would not be. the if a jew moves into a certain household or plants an
olive tree in a certain area, he will be confronted by one of the funded ngos in israel not because he didn't plant the olive tree correctly, not because he couldn't afford to buy the house but because he was jewish. our open housing laws would never permit in the united states a person to be excluded on the basis of their religion. and, therefore, one of the things congress must do is they must immediately monitor the organizations in question to make sure that none of their funds either support acts of terror acts of violence, acts of breach of the peace, and, indeed acts which discriminate against any organization or any individual or any family because of their religious background. i remember sitting with adalla,
their representative, another very nice guy. you know when you do these investigations you find nothing but devoted intellectual people involved in this process. we were sitting at the american colony hotel which is a great hotel in east jerusalem where lawrence of arabia spent some time and general allenby, and i asked them what their mission was. and he said their mission was to document military war crimes and things of that nature. ..
i know that many equal rights and human rights groups in this country would never consider saying well, we will recognize the human rights of everyone except a jew. if this is what our american policy congressional policy has manufactured this incredible monster that needs to be tamed this incredible monster that needs to be undone. and that is the purpose of my coming here today to congress to tell you that the research i did in financing puts it all together. puts it in one place. it uses in ten stools of documentation with hundreds of footnotes with the ten or
20-man documentation team, volunteers all over the world as i have for all of my books open me document the process. there are more pages in this book dedicated to complimenting the good works of the in is for balance that exists anywhere in journalism but it is all going to start over again now. today we start afresh day. today congress says, we have made a mistake. we have built a bridge, and not a breach of peace. it is like the bridge over the river kwai. abraham lincoln said who has done this to us, we have done it to ourselves.
that is why i have given six months of mice live to running financial reforms, and now i will take questions. thank you very much. i am going to take some questions both from the assembled media year, there are several, and i will take some questions from people constituents all over the united states who have sent there questions and. i am going to start by asking -- a question from florida. let me start. you have a question?
>> my question. congress you know, the terrorism. >> congress, the house of congress is a house divided. i understand that. the house of congress, although it is divided is unified on several issues coming unified on the issue of mideast piece the issue of reconciliation toward palestinian and arab, unified and the issue of charitable work, and they're unified on the issue of terrorism. i believe that we can start today and we can do the job that the rest of the media and the world has not done and bring this to the attention of congress. i am asking for hearings. i know that the armstrongs what -- armstrong williams show will
be asking for those two. and thinking it is possible we can make some progress. let me take a question. do you have a question? >> let me just say you know, there is lot of separation between. do you think that there is way to get to the world more than just the united states and the matter? how, you know -- to you believe it couldn't be more than just drawing mines? >> which agreements? >> you talked about how they are not drawing lines in these agreements and it has created -- do you think that there is -- >> you mean the warring parties in the middle east? >> yes. >> what those parties do has nothing to do with this. the question is, will they be allowed to decide on their own without debt without that conflict and without that discussion, that that disagreement confounded and
confused by taxpayer money which is being spent to achieve the exact opposite. actually as a bargaining chip. so really if there would be success here, the parties would be left alone to talk among some cells, but peace does not have a chance because peace does not say in israel because there is no money in it. only confrontation pay, only terrorism pay. this kind of like asking saudi arabia to stop exporting oil. that is what they do for a living. in the palestinian authority is our money comes when the street gets hot. people don't pay extra because someone worked in a hotel and was courteous. people don't pay extra because some israelis and arabs got together and had dinner and said how we work it out.
i want my mind to be there and you on my line to be there. what can we do in the middle? the greatest territorial conflicts in the world and for this work i study them to my study all of the walls in the world. i think there were 41. i study the walls in northern ireland. i studied the ones up today the wall between saudi arabia the wall in cyprus, the walls of beirut, though walls that we are building between us and mexico. i studied all of these. territorial disputes, they go back to abraham. there in the bible. i will be on line and you will be on yours. people of good will can make that decision. people of goodwill can say 300 feet pitch in my house and your house. let's work it out. neighbors have always been able to come together. so really, don't -- we cannot
ask the wrong question. this is a human rights issue. human rights must never be politicized. and in the massive human rights we would mobilize millions for the sake of confronting human rights in creating a political imbalance. okay. all right. i'm going to take a question now from detroit. this is from martin. and martin wants to know, martin wants to know if -- just as samos and hezbollah have massive chair will operations that do not get american taxpayer money should then you as well find be put in the same box? wow, i am sorry to say that is a totally wrong question to ask. you should never mentioned the
fund and how moss and his ally in the same breath. i understand the reason behind this wrong question. hezbollah and hamas all have charitable wings where they have soup kitchens and summer camps and things of that nature, but they also have this militant wing. now, the new israel fund its massive charitable wing, and it has a massive political wing, but there is nothing approaching the scope of hezbollah and hamas in this arrangement. but no way you avoid it going into that is by setting guidelines of what can and cannot be done with american taxpayer money. remember anyone can start a political party in israel. all they need is a photocopier and they have a political party. the question is, should every
man, woman and child in iowa, florida, and not carolina pony up for the war chest for that organizations -- that organization's ability that a political party. let me take another question. all right. this is a question from a publication called the elegant minor. this is one of our publications sponsors. stand by. and one of the questions that they asked -- here it is. by the way i am reminded to say the chairman, one of the official co-sponsors of my project. and i did not know that he was a journalist in his earlier days,
as i was. so the question from the managing editor there is how come so few people understood what was going on with the new israel fund? we have interviewed several in if donors, and not one of the new about these activities. >> this new wing is part of our philosophy. this new israel fund is completely transparent. if towners personae leave us to give them hundreds of thousands of dollars to organizations or they have not done their due diligence to see what is going on the legacy is sort of follows
the model of all of wall street. people are giving money to corporations and investing and then the corporations go belly up but in this particular case. but in commack the donors don't know. it's because the media the spotlight in this country people must be informed. and well there is a vibrant business press that covers every dylan shot of what is going on in the business world there are very few people like myself to investigate what is going on in the human rights world. that is why carnegie, rockefeller, the ford foundation, and i have done it now the new israel fund.
but about 80 organizations that i looked at. i looked at the financial records. and i think it is the start of a new day. i will take one more question. this is similar to the same question i got wednesday. the new israel fund is famous for retaliation. i you fearing the new israel fund? >> the new israel fund is famous for retaliation. that is true. a lot of people were great to speak to me on the record. many people do. lots of famous people, lots of give and officials who would not mention by name but we all know who we're talking about. so i ask that very question to the head of the in is.
and i quote from his response. he says the number 19 in san francisco. it is funny. it is a symptom of where we are. the in is does not go after anyone like that. i do think some of these folks are saying that they are now synonymous with the bogyman but it bears very little relation to reality. we have the power that so many on the left and right a tribute to as i asked my we strongly in so many attacks? we get blamed for everything. it is patently absurd. there is no relation to reality. it would be laughable if it wasn't sort of sad. so in other words the new israel fund has been spotlighted before by many critics perhaps
not in the united states certainly in his route, and that's it shows msn as they say which they say all the time, it is a bunch of right-wing nice that is the proof positive that is political. because -- how does a charity become the object of a right wing or a left-wing attack unless there are involved in politics? if you are involved in politics you're certainly not a charitable organization. so what has happened to me i know that a lot of things that happened to me since i started this investigation. i know that members of the ngo community when i investigated and named they went to my editors weeks before i went to my editors and said, we know he is writing an article for you. we were approached by individuals who are -- for press
conferences. you were one of them a couple of radio he said they had heard about it. they just wanted to see what it was and get a copy. we check them out. nothing to do with the media. is suddenly appeared. said they get an invitation and it did not give me know that individuals have contacted certain people it really know that there was an emergency meeting of tax attorneys in washington d.c. in mid october -- actually made to late october. and the emergency meeting of tax attorneys was designed to answer anything that congress might throw at it. and so while many people talk about retaliation of the in if ibm ford, general motors, carnegie rockefeller the new
israel fund is not a real problem. so if there any other questions for many of the policy people in the room. you have a question? what is your first and? kyle yes kyle. >> i wanted to ask you you said that this issue of paying salaries for bosnian prisoners was no surprise to, you know, the ambassadors in the policy people and the foreign ministers, yet somehow it's a surprise to mayors of congress. one of the first things that any congressman is going to do if they want to all the hearings is ask the state department what you know about this. at least to the question are they misinforming congress, do you think? if so, why? >> well, first of all they have not been as the right questions so they have not misinformed congress, there is such a thing as a massive misrepresentation. and if you knew that there was a terrorist getting your money you
would be duty bound to reported. in our country our administration should not be vibrantly and robustly allowing american taxpayer money ted be financed into tears salaries, which is abruptly saying this has got to stop. let me give you a simile. the biggest illustration in the history of mankind occurred in egypt some months ago. the beast petition in the history of mankind occurred in agent some months ago. the muslim brotherhood was dethroned. the question was -- and i have my own tv show. ask this question. everyone in the media was asking this question, was a military coup. if so, this does not disqualify it for u.s. funding. of course, those of us to know
the history of democratic movements those of us to know that people like a offset where were -- they got power through the electoral process those of us know that elections don't make democracies democracies make the elections. as a lesson of that democracy can be hijacked by the wrong people who openly admit their hijacking it for reasons that are nondemocratic when there as a court action and these people were put out and now there is a genuine interface democratic movement in egypt with a caustic patriarch actually on the dais with the muslim leaders. that is a real turning point. so immediately congress said, oh let's discuss it estimated. is it not -- immediately went to the front page.
so congress can come if it wants, stopped dead in its tracks and say what have we done? and they need to do that here. they need to not take a long time doing is because every day that congress delays in its hearing coming every day it congress delays come every day that congress delays in rectifying it's wrong in this area we open the possibility that some bright eyed palestinian villager living in poverty like the one who killed that medical will feel, this is my chance for money this is my chance. by the way i just want to add an addendum. what is the most astonishing thing that i found in this research? organizations who claimed were just here for democracy have no problem undermining democracy in
israel. i refer no committed to it to a credit processes. interrupting elections is not an act of democracy. i think we need to define what is wrong with the system take a good hard look at the system, i admit that there is a new entity that never existed before systems there was a king cole and a king -- we have big ngo. they're report to no one belong
to no one. they're international. they have all of this and switzerland -- if they'd all like along there will overturn it. if they don't like what happened when they tried to overturn it they will go to the supreme court. they don't like the action of the supreme court will appeal the supreme court to the wind. well that is what we do in a democratic process. that is what the people of the land to in democratic process. that is not what is done from boston and san francisco as we pull the strings on what is and is not going to be done with the legitimacy of israeli law and law, by the way that goes back
to the beginning of the judeo-christian -- i hope that answers your question. is there another question here? with that, ladies and gentlemen thank you very much for having me. i hope to come back soon. thank you. [applause] >> is our nonfiction opera but you would like to see featured on book tv? send us in the now. or tweet us. >> i was just talking with karen hooper at the national festival. tell us a little bit about chasing gideon. >> i worked on this but for about a year-and-a-half and it is tied to the 50th anniversary of the supreme court decision gideon versus lorain -- wainwright.
my initial idea was to go out and take the temperature across the country to see how this issue of the right to counsel has played out in the last 50 years says that landmark decision. so i found it -- there is a huge crisis in the court. public defenders are grossly overworked. some of the public defender's i talked to are carrying as many cases as 700 the time. so what i tried to do in the book was to write a book about his prices in the court. that was written for general readers out and everyone involved in the court system all recognize that is broken there is this huge crisis and not do anything. i went in with that question.
i think the answer auto with is that most people outside of the judicial system don't know about these problems. so i rode to those people who are interested in justice and fairness but as bono irene addis states. and i tried to tell a story narrative we so that it is interesting to people and so that you see what it is like to go through the court for my client perspective. i talk about 18 euros you're in a car accident and charged with vehicular manslaughter. i talk about much of euro who is accused of sexual. [indiscernible] because he played with a neighbor or allegedly. and i talk about a death penalty case and other cases like that and i try to tell the story
through the perspective of those plans and what it's like and how important a lawyer's role is because the court system can be very overwhelming when you look at it, you know, and you walk into any court in the country and you will see rows and rows and rows of people sitting on benches are standing in always you are meeting their lawyers for the first time on the fly down of their names camino, the test out their hand, they fill up some story in finance. and then ask this person to go into court and fnn. and this person is doubling -- juggling so many cases to mike and i really dedicate the time that they need to do justice for this person's case. so i wanted to tell that story. and just to focus our nation's attention on that for years
after the supreme court decision. >> what is the core reason further this system being broken? is this simply a matter of not enough money or is it a matter of not being enough interest by qualified attorneys to do this kind of work? some kind of combination? something else? >> i think it's a combination of things. there are several system problems. there is a culture in the court where sometimes among public defenders their is a sort of robot no about how much work you can do without complaining. so the culture of the court can feel that, especially also among judges who have an attitude of move the case is a long, cleared the docket, let's keep things going keep the calendar clear. so there is that culture, and then there is big financial problems and financial disincentives. so there are often not enough
public defenders miss of the caseloads it too high, so that is another huge problem. and then there is also a problem with the way that public defenders of pay in many states. for example out in washington state one of the chase -- cases that i wrote about up there they have these things called contract attorneys. and they are paid a flat fee contract for every client that gets sent their way in a particular county. and all of their fees for experts or investigators or any of that has to come out of their own flat fee contract. so there is a disincentive sometimes, to do good work. so there is lot of different pressure points in the system and now. but i think the biggest problem is the general public does not realize that and it is a hard
sell to the public because of the people ever hear from politicians are kind of, you know lock them up and throw away the key, three strikes you're out. there really are fearful of getting elected by talking about any of these issues are showing the least bit of fairness our empathy for these people who are going through the system. so i think there has to be a cultural shift in the kind of conversation that we have publicly on these issues. >> any good news? >> there are some places that are doing good jobs. washington d.c. is one of them. they have the crown milligram of public defenders. started a national movement to limit caseloads and said it tried to deal more holistic play with all of the issues that defendants might be facing like
if they have come into the system because they been stealing related to drug addiction or homelessness or whenever. those new programs and trying to have public defenders offices deal with the source of the problem, look at the rear of the problem and deal more broadly with the people the come through their system, so there is good news out there. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you for having me. >> next on book tv, encore book notes, appearing on book notes in 1992 to discuss her book, that grows in the balcony women, men, and the new york times. a book chronicles the history of sex discrimination at the new york times and details the class-action suit brought against the times by seven women in 1974. that suit was settled in favor of the women. this is about an hour.